Karl Kiem

Your submission at Articles for creation: Staaken Garden City has been accepted

Staaken Garden City, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reviewing and accepting. Karl Kiem (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello, I'm P199. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Weigh house have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Great to add a "History" section, but it was entirely based on your own publication, added as a reference, further reading, and external link; how is that not self-promotional, WP:COI? P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello P199, I am a retired professor for architectural history and I wrote the only scientific book on this subject. And as I am retired I felt it would be an idea to improve the article I know that is absolutely outdated. There is no money for me involved or anything else. The main literature you can get or free via the external link. It was just about keeping the article up to date to the current state of research. And telling the public where it finds further information. Deleting my text brings the article 30 years back where it was. Please tell me, where the article is written not objectively, not from a neutral perspective. And what the important other literature is that is missing? Karl Kiem (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Hello, I'm Eejit43. I noticed that in this edit to Weigh house, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit is explained in the summary: "Accidental mention of some weigh house and redundant descriptions replaced by a link to al list of all known weigh house". Some months ago I agreed with users here that this would be an improvement and now I did. So please undo your undoing. 79.198.236.148 (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it seemed like a lot of content to remove without proper discussion, but I'll trust you on that. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The content is just moved to a newly created page and is extended there. 79.198.236.148 (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see, sounds good! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)